G.R. No. L-55988 February 18, 1983
CECIL DIGMAN, petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (First Division) and MARCELO U. AGUINDADAO, respondents.

FACTS

Cecil Digman was the Nacionalista Party (NP) candidate for vice-mayor of La Trinidad, Benguet in the January 30, 1980 elections. His opponent, Marcelo Aguindadao, the official Kilusang Bagong Lipunan (KBL) candidate, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify Digman on the ground of turncoatism. Aguindadao presented evidence that Digman had affiliated with the KBL on December 26, 1979, served as municipal KBL treasurer, and sought but failed to secure the KBL nomination before switching to the NP.
The COMELEC, prior to the election, directed the municipal board of canvassers via telegram to withhold Digman’s proclamation. The board disregarded this directive and proclaimed Digman as the elected vice-mayor on February 5, 1980, after he received 6,820 votes against Aguindadao’s 3,811. Digman subsequently took his oath of office. Post-election, the COMELEC issued a resolution on August 27, 1980, disqualifying Digman on the turncoatism charge, declaring the votes for him as stray, and later proclaiming Aguindadao as the duly elected vice-mayor.

ISSUE

Whether the COMELEC correctly disqualified Cecil Digman as a candidate for vice-mayor on the ground of turncoatism and properly proclaimed his opponent as the winner.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the COMELEC’s resolution, dismissing Digman’s petition. The legal logic rests on the application of constitutional and statutory provisions prohibiting political turncoatism. Section 10, Article XII(C) of the 1973 Constitution and Section 7 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 52 prohibited a candidate from changing political party affiliation within six months immediately preceding an election. The Court deferred to the COMELEC’s factual finding, based on substantial evidence, that Digman changed his affiliation from KBL to NP within this prohibited period, thereby disqualifying him from running under the NP banner.
The Court distinguished this case from Venezuela vs. COMELEC, where a post-proclamation disqualification petition was dismissed with a directive to file an election protest. Here, the controversy was treated as a pre-proclamation issue because the board of canvassers defied the COMELEC’s explicit pre-proclamation order to withhold Digman’s proclamation. Consequently, the COMELEC retained jurisdiction to resolve the disqualification. Since Digman was disqualified, the votes cast for him were correctly considered stray. As the sole qualified candidate, Aguindadao was rightly proclaimed the winner, receiving the next highest number of votes. The Court affirmed that the COMELEC’s factual determination on turncoatism, supported by jurisprudence like Gabatan vs. COMELEC, was final and binding.